Also
in this series:
Introduction
Part
One: Biblical Authority
Part
Two: Authority from Tradition – the Jewish Sages and the Early Church Fathers
Part
Three: The Weight of Traditional Views
Part
Four: Man’s Fallible Opinions
Part
Five: Clues in the Text
Part
Six: More Clues in the Text
Part
Seven: What are the Days of Genesis?
Part
Eight: Misconceptions of Paradise
Part
Nine: Life and Death in the Pre-Fall Animal World, I
Part
Ten: Life and Death in the Pre-Fall Animal World, II
Part
Eleven: The Other Realm and the Other Fall
Part
Twelve: Tracing the Advent of Man, I
Part
Thirteen: Tracing the Advent of Man, II
Part
Fourteen: Tracing the Advent of Man, III
The Two-Population Model
Pre-Adamism
In
regard to Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, Denisovans, and other races science has
uncovered that strongly resemble Adamic man, Old Testament scholar Gleason
Archer writes:
It seems best to
regard these races as all prior to Adam’s time, and not involved in the Adamic
covenant…They may have been exterminated by God for unknown reasons prior to
the creation of the original parent of the present human race. Adam, then, was
the first man created in the spiritual image of God, according to Gen. 1:26-27,
and there is no evidence from science to disprove it.
This
has been the view long held by evangelical Gap Theory proponents such as G.H.
Pember, Derek Prince, and J. Vernon McGee, among others. It is also perhaps the
simplest resolution to the problem of human origins in light of scripture. If
other races of man once existed but were already off the scene prior to the
creation of Adam, then, as Archer states, Adam was the first member of the
present race of humans. There is no scientific evidence against this idea and it
presents no theological issues. The Bible doesn’t indicate this, but then there
are many things the Bible doesn’t discuss, so that is hardly a deal-breaker.
The
only issues of potential theological significance here are the questions of
whether pre-Adamites would have been fully human or made in the image of God. Some
have supposed that they must have been “soulless” creatures, no different from
animals. A few passages of scripture help to alleviate this concern:
And the Lord God
formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life; and man became a living soul. – Genesis 2:7
There
are several things to notice here.
First,
note that Adam’s physical body is called “man” even before it is given life: “And
the Lord God formed man of the dust…” God then imparted the “breath of
life” to Adam and Adam became “a
living soul” (or “a living being”). He was not given a soul; he was given
breath and became a soul. The term
“breath” in the phrase “the breath of life” is translated from the Hebrew word neshamah, which, along with the related
term, ruwach, is sometimes also
translated as “spirit” or “wind” in the Bible. The term “soul” is translated
from the Hebrew word nephesh. Adam’s
lifeless body was given neshamah and
became nephesh as a result.
Interestingly
enough, Genesis also uses these same terms in reference to animals:
And God created
great whales and every living creature [nephesh]
that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly. – Genesis 1:21
And out of the
ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;
and brought them to Adam…and whatever Adam called every living creature [nephesh], that was the name of it. –
Genesis 2:19
All flesh that
moved on the Earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming
thing that swarms upon the Earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry
land, all in whose nostrils was the breath [neshamah]
of the spirit of life, died. – Genesis 7:21-22
Thus,
going by the Genesis terminology, a “soul” is simply a living being—a term
applied to both humans and animals. Both were formed from the dust and both
were given life by the same neshamah.
A “soul” is something you are, not some mystical quality you possess. Thus,
there is no reason to believe that pre-Adamic humans must have been “soulless” and,
therefore, not fully human. The argument is textually groundless.
As
to the question of whether pre-Adamites would have been made in the image of
God, let’s look at Genesis 1:26-27, where the image is first mentioned:
Then God said,
“Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule
over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and
over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and
female He created them.
Genesis
is not entirely clear what it means to be made ‘in the image” of God, and the
matter has been hotly disputed in theological circles. Given the way the text
reads, in that man is to have dominion over the earth and its creatures, it
would seem that man, as a class of being, is a divinely-appointed ruler meant
to represent God on the earth. In the words of Dr. Michael Heiser, “God intends
us to be him on this planet.”
Taken this way, the “image” of God is, once again, not a mystical quality but
rather a positional matter—an office, if you will.
By
this line of reasoning, anyone who is fully human qualifies as a divine imager.
The image can be tarnished in us by sin, but even so we do not cease to bear
it. Of course, among humankind only Christ has borne the image of God
perfectly, so much so in fact that at the Last Supper he was able to say in
reply to Philip, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”
In
short, the question of whether pre-Adamites would have been divine “imagers”
boils down to whether God gave them both the capacity and the mandate to rule
over his creation. Perhaps they had the capacity, but not the mandate. Perhaps
the mandate was not given until the creation of Adam, or perhaps it was
different from Adam’s. Without a definite witness from scripture on the matter,
there is really no way of knowing.
Co-Adamism
If
there were other races of man, suppose they weren’t extinct by the time Adam
came on the scene? Suppose there were effectively two populations of humanity
existing at the same time? This idea is called co-Adamism, and while it raises
more complex issues than does pre-Adamism, there are plausible solutions to
those issues, and possibly even a bit of scriptural attestation.
Genesis
1 and 2
It
has long been recognized that a sort of tension exists between Genesis 1 and 2,
particularly where the creation of man is concerned. For the most part, it has
usually been argued that the creation of man—both male and female—in Genesis
1:27-30 is a sort of snapshot view that is expanded upon in Genesis 2:7-25. For
most of my life, that was my view as well. Yet, there are problems with it, and
those problems open up the possibility of another interpretation.
As
I described in detail in chapter six, scripture clearly differentiates between
the Garden of Eden and the land (“earth”—Hebrew: erets) outside of the garden. The garden was an ideal, protected
place where the ground readily yielded to man’s efforts to cultivate it, and
did so in great variety, whereas the land outside of the garden did not yield
its produce so easily or with such variety. When man is created in Genesis 1,
he is tasked with “subduing” the earth: that is, the land outside of the
garden, as well as its creatures (including sea creatures). The Hebrew used to
relay this admonition indicates forceful subjugation. In other words, man was
told to forcefully bring the earth and its creatures under his dominion and to
rule over them. In Genesis 2, however, Adam is placed in the garden (an
isolated area of the globe) and commanded to care for it and cultivate it. The
tone is softer. Nothing is said of animals or other creatures of the earth, and
Eve is not present until Adam has been at this task for some time.
Question:
Why would God tell Adam to rule over the land and its creatures and then take
him from the land and place him elsewhere with a new, apparently more limited
assignment? Further, why is the command to rule over the land given to both
male and female, whereas the task of tending the garden is primarily Adam’s,
with Eve brought in later as a suitable helper?
The
traditional “snapshot” view could be defended on grounds that the creation of
man in Genesis 1 is told in very general terms, with God’s ultimate intent in
mind, whereas Genesis 2 conveys how God set man on the path to fulfilling the Genesis
1 mandate, starting in one small area. The problem with that defense is that
Genesis 1 mentions only the land in
the mandate given to humanity, and the mandate appears to be immediate, with
God pronouncing everything good thereafter, whereas Genesis 2 sees Adam taken from the land and given a much
more limited area of influence. Later, in Genesis 3, Adam is exiled to the land
outside of the garden. This is a punishment,
strongly indicating that Adam was not supposed to be on the land. How then
could he have been expected to exercise dominion over it? Indeed, God’s words
indicate that Adam would be in conflict with the land, and would not dominate
it at all.
In
light of these things, it is plausible to speculate that Genesis 1 and 2 tell
the story of two separately created populations of humanity. Scripture doesn’t
offer us much to go on here, but apart from Gap Theory assumptions, most
efforts to pinpoint two co-existing populations of humanity have focused on
ambiguities found in Genesis chapters 4 and 6.
I
will look at these issues beginning with the aftermath of Cain’s murder of
Abel, as described in Genesis 4:13-17:
Cain said to the
Lord, “My punishment is too great to bear! Behold, you have driven me this day
from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be
a vagrant and wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” So the
Lord said to him, “Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on
him sevenfold.” And the Lord appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding
him would slay him. Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and
settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain had relations with his wife and
she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city and called the name
of the city Enoch after his son.
As
of the events of Genesis 4, the only people who appear in the biblical text are
Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. The text does not get around to mentioning daughters
and other sons being born to Adam until Genesis 5, so when we read the story of
how Cain fled after killing Abel, we naturally wonder who Cain was afraid of,
who his wife was, and how he built a city with just himself, his wife, and his
son.
Cain’s
Wife
Genesis
4:25 tells the story of the birth of Seth, of whom his mother remarks: “God has
appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.” In
Genesis 5:3, we’re told that the birth of Seth took place when Adam was 130
years old, and that Seth was “a son according in his [Adam’s] own likeness,
according to his image.” Seth appears to have been the next male offspring born
to Adam, as he takes Abel’s place, becoming Adam’s heir. We know from Genesis 5
that Adam and Eve had daughters, but we’re not told when they were born. It’s
entirely possible that at least one of them was born between the births of Cain
and Seth, making her old enough to be Cain’s wife by the time Cain killed Abel.
This was before the biblical prohibition against incest and, theoretically,
during a time when the genetic issues that would plague the offspring of a
sibling union today were non-existent.
Thus,
Cain’s wife may well have been his sister. The pseudopigraphical book of
Jubilees says this explicitly, naming her Awan, and saying that she was born
after Abel and became Cain’s wife.
This
is a plausible conclusion from the text, and it’s the traditional answer the
church has given on the matter, but it is not actually stated in the biblical
text and consequently lacks absolute authority. If there were other humans outside
of the garden region, it’s possible that Cain could have married a woman from
among them. Yet, although I do believe such people existed, I don’t believe
Cain married one of them. I have only supposition to offer here, but it seems
strongly evidential to me.
The
genealogies of Genesis are not just given out as extraneous information; they
serve a purpose. As I have said previously, they trace the Abrahamic line—which
ultimately becomes the Messianic line—all the way back to Adam: the original
image-bearer. Moses is very careful in the way he notes this. In Genesis 4:1-2
and 25, Moses tells us that Adam had relations with Eve, producing Cain, Abel,
and Seth. It seems odd that he should note this. The Hebrews knew well enough
where babies came from, so why specify this in the text, especially if there
was no one else around having children? Why does he make it clear that Seth was
born in Adam’s image? The only reason that makes sense to me here is that Moses
wanted his readers to know that Seth was the product of Adam and Eve rather
than of some other combination.
What
other combination? A likely answer has to do with Genesis 6 and the infamous
“Sons of God/daughters of men” passage:
Now it came about
when men began to multiple on the face of the land, and daughters were born to
them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and
they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the Lord said, “My
Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh;
nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were
on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to
the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men
who were of old, men of renown. – Genesis 6:1-5
There
are several views of this passage today, but the majority view of the ancient
Hebrews and early Christians was that it refers to an unholy union of fallen
angels and mortal women that produced a hybrid race: the Nephilim, probably the
same as the “giants” that are periodically mentioned in the Old Testament (see
Numbers 13:33, for instance).
These
individuals are always spoken of negatively in scripture, not only being
impressive in size and strength but also as fierce and threatening. Josephus
comments on them as follows in his Antiquities
of the Jews:
For many angels of
God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, despisers of all
that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for
the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the
Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being
displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and
their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were
slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together
with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of
that land.
This
issue of the Nephilim likely explains why who-begat-whom is so important in the
lineage of Abraham (and, ultimately, of Christ), or at least why it was
important to the ancient Hebrews. Given this view, it’s certainly
understandable how Moses would have wanted his people to know that their roots
were free from the defiling influence of the Nephilim, being purely Adamic, purely
human. The Israelites were sensitive to bloodline issues, having been forbidden
from intermarrying with the inhabitants of the surrounding nations (see
Deuteronomy 7:1-7).
They thought of themselves as “the holy race” (Ezra 9:2), set apart by God and
distinct from all the peoples of the earth (Romans 9:3-5, Galatians 2:11-15,
Ephesians 2:12).
Abraham
himself set an example in this area by sending his servant to take a wife for
his son Isaac from among his own relations instead of from the inhabitants of
Canaan. The subsequent prohibition to Israel regarding intermarriage, and their
conception of themselves as a distinct and holy race, is probably why the story
of Isaac and Rebekah is told in such detail in Genesis 24.
In
a similar way, given that only Adam’s line enjoyed a direct relationship with
God, it’s doubtful that Adamites would have readily intermarried with other
humans. Like the Hebrews of later times, it’s more likely they would have
looked down on those of other races and kept themselves separate. This attitude
would have relaxed somewhat over time (just as it did with the Hebrews), but in
the beginning they would have been reluctant to intermarry with others,
especially given that the women of their line were apparently quite lovely (Genesis
6:2).
For
these reasons, if there were other humans present on the earth apart from
Adam’s line, I doubt Cain would have intermarried with them. His wife was
almost certainly his sister. I cannot prove that from the text, but I find it
to be the most plausible explanation.
Still,
there may be more to this mystery of the Nephilim. I find it strange that the
union of Adam and Eve is emphasized even before
the events of Genesis 6, before Adam’s line became a sizeable population and
the sons of God took notice of human women. The Nephilim are almost always
supposed to be the product of angelic-human relations, but some have also
pointed out that there is another way to understand this text. Read the
following excerpt from the passage again:
The Nephilim were
on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore
children to them.
One
can read this as the Nephilim being the product of the sons of God and the
daughters of men, but one can also read this as the Nephilim already being
present “on the earth in those days, when the sons of God came in to the
daughters of men.” This alternate reading places the Nephilim on the scene
before the events of Genesis 6 and would explain why the text is careful to
note that Adam and Eve produced Cain, Abel, and Seth. However, it could also be
that there was confusion in Moses’ time as to when the corruption of the
Nephilim began, so he made it clear for the readers of Genesis that it did not
begin until Adamic man had reached a sizeable population.
If
the Nephilim were already on the earth before the events of Genesis 6, however,
who were they?
The
word Nephilim is translated from the Hebrew nephiyl,
which Strong’s defines as meaning “a
feller, a bully or a tyrant.”
Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary
notes that it may refer to “falling on, attacking.”
It is derived from the root word naphal,
which means “to fall” and can be used in numerous ways, including as a
metaphor. This is the word that is used in Genesis 2:21 where we’re told that
God caused a deep sleep to “fall upon” Adam. It’s the word used where sleep and
darkness “fall upon” Abraham in Genesis 15:12, and where Abraham “falls” on his
face before God in Genesis 17:3. In other passages, it is sometimes used in
reference to someone falling down dead or being struck with disease. As I’ve
already noted, the Nephilim were known for being violent, which fits with the
idea of attacking, felling, or falling upon someone, as these Hebrew words
suggest.
In
light of this, if the Nephilim were present before the sons of God/daughters of
men incident, the term may have originally applied to anyone who was not of the
line of Adam, but eventually came to be identified most with the offspring of
the Genesis 6 union. I consider this the most likely explanation. Remember that
the original community of humans (assuming my speculation is correct) was
created to forcefully subjugate the land and its creatures. This would suggest
that they may have been more physically powerful than those of Adam’s line.
Interestingly, scientists who have studied Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other
such groups, have concluded that they were more physically robust than Adamic
man.
Cain’s
Sign and City
Going
back to Cain’s flight to the land of Nod, two more questions present themselves
from the text: Who was Cain afraid might find and kill him, and how did he
build a city with just himself, his wife, and his son?
It’s
entirely possible that Cain thought future sons of Adam might decide to find
him and take vengeance for the death of Abel. This seems likely because of the
way Cain phrases his protest to God: “I will be a vagrant and wanderer on the
earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” Cain was now an outcast, a man without
a community. The Hebrews of Moses’ day who read this may have immediately
thought of a man fleeing from an avenger of blood (see Numbers 35 and
Deuteronomy 19). Such a man was only safe in particular cities that were set
apart for that purpose in the land of Israel, and here Cain was a man with no
city, destined to live open and exposed in the wilderness. There seemed to be
nothing to stop his own brethren from eventually finding and killing him. God
himself had already told him, “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to
Me from the ground.” Crying for what? Vengeance, it would seem.
Further,
Cain protested to God: “From your face I will be hidden,” indicating that he
felt he was somehow more under God’s direct supervision and protection in the
region of Eden than he would be outside of it. This is also consistent with how
the Hebrews viewed their country as Yahweh’s inheritance, with the surrounding
lands belonging to other gods, as it were.
Cain saw Eden as “God’s country” and felt exposed to other forces outside of
it.
This
line of reasoning makes perfect sense apart from one thing: Even though Seth
had not yet been born (and in Hebrew tradition was not born for quite some time
after this incident), Cain seems to think the threat is immediate, as it comes
to mind quickly and God “appoints a sign” for him then and there so that no one
who finds him will kill him. Consider this in light of my previous discussion
of the Nephilim, and how the word may indicate someone who “falls upon” a
person or thing in the sense of attacking them. If there were indeed other
people around at the time, and they were fierce and physically powerful, Cain
would have had every right to be worried that they might fall on him. This is at
least plausible.
As
for Cain building a city, this could simply be a reference from the perspective
of one looking back on Cain’s life accomplishments rather than something he
went out and did immediately. Given the long lifespans enjoyed by those of
Adam’s line, Cain would have lived to see many generations of his descendants,
and it could be that others descended from Adam and Eve might have eventually
wandered off and joined Cain’s group. It’s also possible that other, non-Adamic
humans might have been around and joined in with Cain, but there is no reason
to suppose so from the text. Still, one cannot entirely rule it out.
Adam
and Eve as the First Humans
When
the possibility of humans outside of the garden is raised, and textual
evidences such as those I’ve discussed here are brought forward, it is usually
objected that the New Testament clearly says that Adam was the first human
being. There are a few passages that are used to support this contention, but I
do not believe they carry the weight that is usually ascribed to them.
“And He [God] made
from one man every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth, having
determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation.” –
Acts 17:26
In
some Bible versions, you will find the word “man” in the phrase “from one man”
in italics. This is because the word is not present in all manuscripts. The
Textus-Receptus has the word haima,
meaning “blood,” in this phrase, and thus renders it: “from one blood,” as the
KJV, NKJV, and Young’s Literal Translation render it. Others, such as the NLT,
NIV, ESV, and NASB follow the Nestle-Aland Greek Text, which is based on the
oldest Greek manuscripts available, and simply reads: “From one He made every
nation,” leaving it up to the translators to figure out what the “one” should
refer to, with most opting for “one man,” meaning Adam.
In
his book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve,
Dr. Joshua Swamidass cites some surprising scientific research showing that,
even supposing that humanity was originally divided into two populations (one
in the garden and one outside of it), the two groups could have mingled to the
point that, by 1 AD, every living person could have traced his or her genealogy
to Adam and Eve.
Thus, Paul’s statement in Acts 17:26 could be completely accurate even if Adam
were not the sole progenitor of the
human race. In support of this, Swamidass points out that Hebrews 11 says that
the entire nation of Israel arose from “one man,” Abraham, yet goes on to tell
us that Rahab the harlot (who was a Canaanite) married into Israel from another
line: “The same could be true of how ‘one’ Adam gives rise to all of humanity
to ‘the ends of the earth.’”
Swamidass’
interpretation makes a great deal of sense, not only given the scientific data,
but also given the apostle Paul’s statement in Galatians 4:4 that Christ was
born in “the fullness of time.” If, by 1 AD, every human being could trace his
or her lineage back to Adam, then Christ, who was of Adam’s line, was fully
qualified to be the savior of all humanity. This may help explain why God did
not send the Savior centuries earlier than he did: the divergent lines of
humanity were not mixed thoroughly enough prior to that time.
Therefore, just as
through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death
spread to all men, because all sinned—for until the Law, sin was in the world,
but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from
Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the
offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. – Romans 5:12-14
The
same scientific evidence indicating that there were humans present on the earth
long before Adam (assuming Adam lived 6-14,000 years ago) also indicates that
these people both lived and died. How then can it be that death entered into
the human race through Adam if it existed before his creation?
There
are some important things to remember here:
First,
if there were humans outside of the garden (prior and/or co-existent with Adam),
they do not appear to have had the same favored status that Adam did, given the
favored location into which God placed Adam Furthermore, although man is given
directives by God in Genesis 1, he is not warned of potential consequences for
a breach of faith, as Adam is warned of in Genesis 2. Adam deliberately
disobeyed God after having been warned that his transgression would result in
death. Thus, Adam directly violated a trust that forfeited his place of favor,
whereas any humans who might have existed outside of the garden did not have
such favor to lose in the first place—at least as far as we know.
Second,
Adam did not have to die. He had access to the Tree of Life and might have
lived indefinitely had he not sinned. Death was a punishment upon Adam, not a
natural state of being. It is now the natural order of things with all of his descendants.
If other humans existed outside of the garden, they might have been brought in
to the place of favor in time, just as Gentiles were ultimately grafted into
“the household of faith,” but Adam’s failure overthrew this hope, at least in
the short term.
Third,
if there were people outside of the Garden of Eden, the Bible is not their
story. Scripture is concerned with the race of Adam and his ultimate heir, who
is Christ. As mentioned previously, Christ came at a particular time. In fact,
per the research cited by Joshua Swamidass, he was born at the exact time that
all of mankind could claim descent from Adam.
Therefore,
just as all humanity was descended from Adam by the time of Christ, so all owed
their subjection to death to Adam’s fall. Again, this is perfectly possible
even if Adam is not the sole progenitor of the human race. To understand all of
this more fully, however, it’s time to look at Adam in a bit of a different
light. Specifically, we need to understand how he relates to Christ.
The
Type of Him Who was to Come
As I
described in chapter two, the early church fathers viewed Genesis—indeed, the
whole Old Testament—through a Christological lens. They saw Christ reflected in
the details of the creation account and drew spiritual lessons from what most
today read as simple narration; and while I may not agree with all of their
conclusions, I do believe they had the right idea.
In
Romans 5:14, the apostle Paul refers to Adam as “a type of Him who was to
come.” Here are some ways in which Christ and Adam are alike:
- Both Adam and Christ came into the world through
supernatural acts of God, with the result that both are called a son of
God, having no human father.
- Both Adam and Christ are “firstborns” of their
respective lines.
- Adam was the overseer of the garden God planted
in Eden; Christ is the heir of the vineyard planted by the Father (see
Isaiah 5 and Matthew 21).
- Adam was condemned to death after tasting the
fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Christ tasted death
for all mankind on the cross, which is sometimes called a “tree” in the
New Testament.
- Adam was exiled from the garden to die; Christ
was put to death “outside the gate.”
- In Adam, all humans die; in Christ, all may live.
- Adam asserted his will in the Garden of Eden;
Christ set aside his will in the Garden of Gethsemane.
- Adam’s bride was taken from his own body by an
act of separation; Christ’s bride is joined to him and becomes his body.
- Adam’s side was pierced while he was asleep;
Christ’s side was pierced while he was dead, which the Bible often equates
with sleep.
- Adam was placed in a special location, set apart
from the rest of the world; Christ was placed in God’s chosen land and
among his covenant people, who were also distinct from the rest of the
world.
If
there was indeed a population of humans living outside of the Garden of Eden
when Adam was created, we might well wonder why God chose to specially create
Adam. Why not just pick someone from among the existing population of humans,
just as he chose Enoch, Noah, Abraham, David, Christ’s apostles, and others we
might mention, out from larger populations in scripture? If we consider Adam as
a type of Christ, a plausible picture emerges.
This
leads us to the last passage used to argue that Adam was the first human being:
I Corinthians 15:42-49:
So also is the
resurrection of the dead. It [the body of man] is sown a perishable body, it is
raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it
is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is
raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual
body. So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’ The
last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but
the natural; then the natural. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the
second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy;
and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have
borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
In
his book, Early Genesis: the Revealed
Cosmology, Mark Moore comments on this passage as follows:
The only passage
of scripture which says that “Adam was the first man” also gives a context in
which he was the first man. He was the first
man in the same manner that Christ was the second
man. He was the first man in the same context in which Christ was the last.
Christ was not the second male human on Earth. Nor was Christ the last male
human on Earth. In context, the passage is not saying that Adam was the first
male human being ever created, but rather it is saying he was the first man God
used in His plan to bring humanity into fellowship and right-standing with
Himself. That is, to “make man in Our Own image.”
Scholars
have pointed out that the word translated “God” in Genesis 1 is elohim, but in Genesis 2, where Adam is
created, it is yahweh elohim, “Lord
God,” incorporating his personal name. In Genesis 1, he speaks to man like a
disembodied voice but does not appear. By contrast, in Genesis 2, when Adam is
created, God is portrayed as being physically present, molding Adam and
breathing into him, being intimate and personal with him.
Thus,
as already discussed in brief, if an initial population of non-Adamite humans
was created in Genesis 1, the text seems to indicate that they knew God in much
the same distant, non-personal way that the gentile nations knew him at the
time of Christ. Adam, on the other hand, knew him more intimately, and by a
covenant name, just as Israel later knew him and enjoyed a special status as
his chosen people living in a promised land.
Given
the differences between Genesis 1 and 2, and in light of the similarities
between Adam and Christ, it is at the very least plausible that Adam was specially created in a world where other
humans already existed, and was then placed in a location that was set apart
from the rest of the world, where he enjoyed a special intimacy with God, just
as Christ was specially born into a world where people already existed, but
also in a place that was set apart to God, and where God was personally known.
It was Christ’s job to reconcile Jew and gentile to God in himself, just as it
may have been Adam’s to unite all of humanity in covenant fellowship with
God—bringing the outsiders into covenant—had he kept his place and not broken God’s
commandment.
Eve:
the Mother of All Living
An
objection that is sometimes raised to the two-population scenario has to do
with Adam’s statement that his wife, Eve, was the “mother of all living”
(Genesis 3:20). How could Eve be called the mother of all the living if people
outside of Eden were being born to other mothers?
First,
it’s important to note that the text has Adam saying this while he and Eve are
still in the garden, after God has pronounced his judgments against them, and
before they are driven out. At this time, Eve was no one’s mother. Her children
are all said to have been born later. So why did Adam say this? It cannot have
been meant in an immediate, literal sense.
I
think it’s likely that Adam said this because of God’s promise to Eve
concerning how her seed would overcome the nechash—the
“serpent,” ultimately crushing him. Prior to this, he may have feared that they
would both die soon, without offspring. God’s promise here reassured them,
letting them know that, in spite of their failure, they would have children who
would enjoy God’s favor. This is probably similar to Genesis 17:18, where
Abraham says to God, “Oh, that Ishmael might live before you!” God had just
promised Abraham a son through his wife, Sarah, and went on to tell Abraham
that he would establish his covenant with that son, passing over Ishmael, who
had been born to Abraham by Sarah’s maid Hagar. In Abraham’s eyes, Ishmael was
effectively “dead” to God, a non-entity, one not entitled to a covenant
relationship, and this grieved him.
Thus,
Adam, in speaking of Eve as the mother of all living even before she had
children, was likely speaking of her as the mother of those who would “live”
before God in the same way as Isaac, in a restored covenant relationship with
him.
Conclusion
In
my opinion, the two-population model of human origins is the only old-earth
model apart from the Gap Theory that accounts for the scientific data
surrounding human origins and still allows for a conservative treatment of the
biblical text. There
is no need to push Adam and Eve’s creation back nearly a million years in order
to accommodate the origin of Neanderthals or any other group that is fully,
demonstrably human. Nor do we need to find models that mythologize Genesis or
otherwise remove its origins content. The creations of Adam and Eve read like
straightforward accounts and are perfectly in line with other biblical
miracles.
At
the very least, the two-population model is a textually plausible interpretation. Moreover, as I have tried to
demonstrate here, I believe it actually helps to more fully unpack the nuances
of the Genesis text and enhances the Christological significance of Adam’s
role. God initially created a population of humans outside of the garden to be
his imagers, exercising dominion over the world, and then later specially
created Adam and Eve for the ultimate purpose of bringing about the Messiah
through a covenant line.
Even
if you find the various textual hints of people outside of the garden
unconvincing, however, this does not necessarily mean that there were no such
people, or that no such people had ever existed in the past. It simply means
that the Bible only concerns itself with the line of Adam, and when it speaks
of “man” and “mankind,” it means the line of Adam. As far as the ancients knew,
“man” was Adamic man, and just as God did not see fit to teach ancient peoples
modern science in the scriptures, he may not have seen fit to provide them with
information about races of men that preceded them. Again, the biblical
genealogies are concerned with tracing the line of the Abraham, which is the
line of Christ, and that line begins with Adam.
As
to why God would have created other races of men in the first place, we can
only speculate, but scripture informs this speculation to some degree.
As
I demonstrated previously, God is continually testing and refining humanity,
and he holds conclaves with his heavenly host in earthly matters. It is
possible that man was made in various forms in order to demonstrate something
to the angels, and perhaps even as an outworking of their own council. In that
case, Adam would seem to represent the finished product, the variation of man
that God chose to place his stamp of approval on and to appoint over the works
of his hands. This may be why, in Genesis 1:27, God says, “Let us make man in
our image.” The way this is worded, it almost seems as if God is speaking about
man as if he already exists and is about to undergo a status change.
In
fact, it may have been God’s intent in creating man to rule over the earth that
precipitated the first angelic rebellion. If angels helped to shape the earth
and its creatures, and if they were ruling over it at the time, God’s intent to
displace them with man might have been a grievous insult to their pride—perhaps
even one that was calculated, at least in part, to reveal their true character.
Scripture
is filled with incidents of unlikely persons being raised up while others who
seemed like better choices were rejected: “the last shall be first and the
first last.” As Cain fumed and slew Abel when his sacrifice was rejected in
favor of his brother’s, and as the vine-dressers of Isaiah’s parable seized the
vineyard for themselves and killed the true heir, perhaps some among the
heavenly host rebelled when God gave man dominion over the earth, intent on
seizing it for themselves.
Again,
this is speculation on my part, but it seems eminently reasonable. Genesis
clearly reveals creation as a process; and although it gives us only a summary
of the various stages in that process, perhaps each stage went through many
variations until, at last, “God saw that it was good.” The history of life’s
proliferation and various extinction level events may hint at this. If so,
perhaps the creation of man underwent a similar process until God determined to
create Adam as the forerunner of the ideal race of man, and as the form in
which the blessed Word himself would eventually be incarnate.
Next in this series: Part Sixteen - Was Jesus a Young-Earth Creationist?
